From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:47:41 +0400 From: Anton Vorontsov To: "M. Warner Losh" Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] of/device: populate platform_device (of_device) resource table on allocation Message-ID: <20100610154741.GA7484@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> References: <20100608194809.GA32732@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <1276150663.1962.43.camel@pasglop> <20100610.091357.513168276793712624.imp@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <20100610.091357.513168276793712624.imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au, jeremy.kerr@canonical.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 09:13:57AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: [...] > : >> I told you several ways of how to improve the code (based on > : >> the ideas from drivers/base/, so the ideas aren't even mine, > : >> fwiw). > : > > : > I tend to agree with Anton here. > : > : The reason I'm confident doing it that way is that it is *not* a > : structure. There is no structure relationship between the resource > : table and the platform_device other than they are allocated with the > : same kzalloc() call. All the code that cares about that is contained > : within 4 lines of code. I'm resistant to using a structure because it > : is adds an additional 5-6 lines of code to add a structure that won't > : be used anywhere else, and is only 4 lines to begin with. > > I tend to agree with Grant here. The idiom he's using is very wide > spread in the industry and works extremely well. It keeps the > ugliness confined to a couple of lines and is less ugly than the > alternatives for this design pattern. It is a little surprising when > you see the code the first time, granted, but I think its expressive > power trumps that small surprise. Oh, come on. Both constructions are binary equivalent. So how can people seriously be with *that* code: dev->resource = (void *)&dev[1]; which, semantically, is a nonsense and asks for a fix. While dev_obj->dev.resource = dev_obj->resource; simply makes sense. -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2